• Regional and Energy Security
• Informational security

27.03.2009

SYSTEM CHANGES

   

Gagik Harutyunyan

Everything that happens in the world today is characterized by the expert community as a system crisis. This wording is reasonable, because considerable changes, accompanied by economical recession, expansion of terrorism, creation of new seats of instability, take place almost in all areas of life activity.

The Challenges of Multi-Polar World

The main process going on in the political space is the creation of multi-polar world order. The geopolitical outlines of this new system are very dim and the rules of the game are not laid down yet. This dictates terms to the international actors, who have to clarify their current policy and to elaborate new tactics. The foregoing tendencies are reasonable. The political philosophy of the United States, which was dominating, turned out to be plain and many countries reacted adequately on it. Today there are several centers of global power; their relations comply with the logic of new “cold war” and turn into military (local wars), diplomatic and informational conflicts. The current economic crisis, as a matter of fact, is also a geo-economic component of that “Cold war”: energy products price deflation, “gas war” between Russia and Ukraine, decline in capacities and many other developments of that kind definitely touch on Russia, China, and this reminds the economic war against “social camp” during the “First cold war”.

It is also significant that today contradictions are deepening not only between traditional opponents (the USA- the RF, the USA- the CPR, the USA-Islamic countries) but also implicitly between the EU and the USA. For example, some official circles in the EU regard the disapproval of “Treaty of Lisbon” on a referendum in Ireland (it had to substitute the rejected Euroconstitution) in 2008 as a result of Pentagon and CIA activity (there was even unofficial investigation pursued on this matter)¹.

There are different and contradictive characteristics of new political developments in the circumstances concerned. But there is one issue that political analysts are concurrent. The formation of multi-polar world contains many dangers and in this context the growth of possibility of new wars outbreak is inevitable.

Pessimistic scenarios

The culture of political forecasts is more cultivated in the USA and on this matter it is significant that there was a report on danger of expansion of mass destruction weapons (they had in their minds North Korea and Iran) that the US special services presented to the Senate in 2008². It is interesting that the report contained not only observations on the difficult situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan but it also touched on the problems which might cause political instability in Europe (look above). In another report made by internal security service, there was said that in the coming five years the United States might be attacked by WMD³. The report “Global trends – 2025” ⁴ by National Intelligence Council (NIC), which also contains some troublous signs, needs special analysis.

Russian analysts are not optimistic either⁵. Some of them are inclide to the opinion that the state of war has been sustainable since September 11, and it is difficult not to agree with this point of view. Others think that this crisis may cause large-scale nuclear war. It is significant that in 2008 the USA and Russia reconsidered their military doctrines; the EU, Great Britain and China also introduce military reforms⁶.

While examining the forecasts of research centres and separate analysts, it is necessary to take into consideration that they have informational and agitation influence component and thus they partially pursue the tactical aim. It is also known that such forecasts, at some extent, direct possible scenarios of future developments, and, what is most important; they seem to be objectively reasonable. Unlike two-polar world (the USA–the USSR), there are no “deterrent mechanisms” formed in multi-polar world, there are no treaties on the restriction of strategic weapons. All this increases the possibility of large-scale (or even nuclear) war.

“Geo-political legacy” of President George Bush: Middle and Near East (MNE)

In the context of nuclear war in recent years (especially in 2003-2007) MNE was considered as “risk” zone, where the relations between the USA, its ally Israel and Iran were escalated because of the nuclear program of Iran and developments around Iraq. At present (in spite of the new conflict between Palestine and Israel which broke out in December 2008) there is an impression that all sides have reached some non-official agreements which have deescalated situation and reduced the possibility of nuclear war in the region. This is evidenced by passive behavior of “Hezbollah” and particularly by the fact that on January 11 of this year Ali Khomenei prohibited the citizens of Iran to take part in current war and terrorist attacks against Israel.

It is remarkable that in the course of Israeli-Palestinian confrontation Turkey took the toughest stance. Prime-minister Erdogan, when raising the issue of barring Israel from the UN, tried “to be a greater Catholic than the Pope”. While the main reason of the contradictions between Turkey and Israel is the Kurdish factor, which stirred up after the war in Iraq and in this issue Turkey’s approaches are closer to the policy conducted by Iran in this line. In addition to this, the ebbing of influence of the US in the region, the emerging “identity crisis” in the inner sphere and other problems make Turkey look for new partners in Eurasia, among which Russia may also be included. It is also obvious that well-known tendencies in the relations with Armenia also comply with that logic. Anyway, today national interests of Turkey and Israel principally differ and the former strategic partnership between these countries, in all appearance, is in the past⁷.

On the assumption of aforementioned tendencies, one may say that in the future the strongholds of the US in MNE will be Israel, with some reservations Iran (thereby we should remember that the relations between Israel and Iran and the US and Iran used to be rather warm) and Kurdish formation having status, which is close to a state. From the point of view of classical strategy this scheme is optimal for the Americans because the contradictions between the parties will essentially raise the role of the US. The strategy of George Bush, who not only remade that key region, but also brought the political content of MNE into line with the national interests of the US and Israel, should be particularly distinguished. We can state that by using power methods and ignoring the reduction of his rating president Bush left a “huge geo-political capital” to his successor.

President Barak Obama: “Large scale PR project”

As early as 2007 in American experts’ forecasts comparatively “peaceful” tendencies in MNE were “outlined”⁸. The changes in the US policy after the presidential elections in 2008 were also assumed. It had been supposed that the democrats would replace “neorepublicans”. In those reports there was emphasized that under the conditions when the US “retreat”, the doctrine of preventative military operations would be replaced by the strategy of “soft power”.

But foreign observers, who followed forecasts and pre-election processes, could hardly imagine that the impressive victory of senator Obama and estimate the influence of that victory on the US and global policy in general. Of course it is early to speak about political achievements of the newly elected president, but it is obvious, that political establishment of the US implemented a large-scale PR project, which can conventionally be called “Barak Obama”. The commentators are unison in the opinions that the mission of the newly elected president is to raise extremely low rating of the US in the international community and it is hard not to agree with such an approach. It is not surprising that by his first decree president Obama closed notorious prison in Guantanamo. The withdrawal of American military forces (MF) from Iraq on a tight schedule is expected. But let us mention that this last step, in all appearance, have to continue the “big strategy” of the Bush administration, which pursued the aim to create a “managed chaos” and to split that country. The current realities in Iraq evidence that the most part of that task is completed. Iraq is divided between Sunnis, Shiahs and Kurds and the misrule prevails in the country. During the years of occupation more than 500 thousand locals were killed in consequence of acts of violence and compulsive actions. At the same time American military presence at some extent restricts terror and interfaith clashes, and one can assume that the withdrawal of occupational troops may encourage the growth of terrorism in that country. In other words, the current US administration will try to continue the policy of its predecessor and, at the same time, they will attach it some new mode or format, which is “acceptable” for American and international community. We think that such an approach will be also implemented in other directions of American policy.

In all circumstances, we should state that “nuclear accents” in MNE have appreciably softened. At present the problem of nuclear war sharpened in the space of the relations between India and Pakistan. As one political commentator mentioned in his day “if during the Cold war the large amount of missiles the USSR and the US possessed was a preventing factor, then the limited amount of nuclear missiles as in case with Pakistan and India has quite an opposite effect. The absence of mutual consent and the fear to be pushed back to the wall enhances the wish to use the missiles”.

Pakistan-India confrontation or “positive result from negative processes” political technology

When on August 19, 2008, the president of Pakistan Pervaz Musharraf resigned under the pressure of opposition, the international community was mainly occupied by the war in South Ossetia between Russia and Georgia and other political developments were pushed to the sidelines. Meanwhile from the point of view of classical geopolitics Central Asia is key region and superstates always were keen to control that part of Eurasia. Without going into historical details it should be remembered that Afghanistan was the first aim of the USA after the attacks on September 11th. It is significant that in 2001 political technology, which can be conditionally called “positive result from negative processes” (positive reaction on negative action), was realized. Taking terrorist attacks on September 11th (negative process) as a basis, the US (and NATO) transformed it into a big geopolitical conquest and established military presence in Central Asia, in the neighbour of the RF and the CPR (positive result). In the past the same technology was used, e.g. in 1941 when they used Purl Harbour to enter World War II. And quite recently, in 2008, various “coloured” election developments in the RA⁹ and Georgian-Russian war¹⁰ can be regarded as the examples of such an approach. In this political conception the informational factor is of great importance, and this allows some analysts to regard it as a component of “informational wars of the third generation”.

Apropos of the constraint resignation of Musharraf, we can state that the controllability of Pakistan, which was not on a high level, has even reduced. According to some versions this trend coincides with the programmes of Great Britain and the USA, aiming to destabilize the region (on the basis of conception of controllable chaos) (look the aforementioned example of Iran) and as a result to try to weaken their major opponent, China. Within the framework of that version the terrorist attacks on Mumbai in November, 2008, which are supposed to be organized by Pakistani government and mainly by Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) (it is regarded as the most powerful special service in the region), show that there is such strategy. Not only Indian government but also independent observers are of the opinion that this terrorist attack are worked out by the special services. In this connection it should be mentioned that the special services experts are unison in opinions that “Taliban” and Bin Laden are the result of joint activity of the ISI and the CIA. Such a mode is characteristic of American (and not only American) special services. Mainly, there is a version that the Islamic radicals in the Guantanamo and secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe were enlisted and “programmed” by special services in order to arrange “managed acts of terrorism” in the future. Circumstantially the messages, which say that most of the former prisoners of those prisons again undergo terrorist activity, evidence in favour of that version¹¹.

As a result of the terrorist attack on Mumbai the relations between India and Pakistan became extremely tense; troops were concentrated on the border; and mass media started to discuss the possibility of nuclear war. It is significant that as back as 1997-2001 the best military and analytical specialists of the USA worked out the following documents: “Asia – 2025” and “Joint vision – 2020”, which contained the scenarios of possible nuclear confrontation between Pakistan and India¹². The following scenario is the most remarkable of them:

“New order in South Asia” scenario

In 2010 Pakistan is in deep economic crisis. Its economy recesses, the inability of government brings to instability, some tribes rebel, Islamic radicals become active, and in 2012 they invade and take over the control of Indian state of Kashmir. India, which due to the collaboration with the USA is in advance of China and becomes the leader of that region, demands Pakistan to subdue radicals and withdraw them from Kashmir but weakened Pakistani government is not to comply with the demand. India brings additional troops into the state. Pakistan demands to withdraw Indian troops, China supports that demand and begins to concentrate their troops on the border with India. The USA involves and demands China to safeguard neutrality.

The conflict reaches its climax when India being afraid of WMD engagement on behalf of Pakistan conducts missile attacks on WMD posts and terrorist camps (according to other scenario that conflict emerges after Pakistani missile crashes the plane carrying Indian ministers and high-ranked officers in the sky over Kashmir). In response uses nuclear weapons against India. As a result of initiated nuclear war (in which the US takes active part on the side of India by conducting missile attack on Pakistani nuclear posts) and chaos, in 2020 Pakistan as a state does not exist any more. Meanwhile India turns into undeniable regional leader and all Asian countries and firstly Iran make overture to India.

The aforementioned scenario is the most advantageous from the point of view of the US interests. In consequence of war their main opponent China is pushed to the sidelines and the US strategic partners India and Iran turns into the leaders of Asia. The US has established new higher level of cooperation with India in recent years (particularly in the nuclear sphere). As it was mentioned above the US use new strategy towards Iran, which can bring to partnership relations between these two countries.

Other possible variants of the developments

There are also some American scenarios which state the dominance of China and which suppose the displacement of the US from South Asian and Asian-Pacific region (the so called “Mighty China” scenario). On the assumption of China’s current development tendencies, it can be assumed that this scenario is more realistic than “New order in South Asia” scenario. At the same time, in multi-polar system the US is “the first among equal” and the strategy implemented successively by them may strongly affect any process which seems to be natural.

In addition the possibility of diametrically opposed scenarios should not be excluded either. Zbigniew Brzezinsky, the adviser of newly elected U.S. President B. Obama, on January 12 of current year suggested Beijing to create the USA-PRC “big two” (“G2”), which will be able to handle main global problems. It remains an open question how China would react on that suggestion.

The question how China would react on that suggestion remains open. One of the classics used to say: “it is more dangerous to be friends with Anglo-Saxons than to conflict with them”. The Chinese, who suffered humiliation from the British during the “opium wars” in 19th century, should be conscious of that fact pretty well. Today the issue of Taiwan is the main offend in the relations between the US and the PRC. At the same time the rebuilding and the relative thaw in the relations between the US and the PRC during the First Cold war made the USSR rebuild its defense system with efforts. Anyway, the international relations in multi-polar system will undergo essential changes and in this context unexpected developments are possible.

Return

---

Another materials of author

• HYBRID CHALLENGES TO INTEGRATION PROCESSES 2[13.02.2020]
• HYBRID CHALLENGES TO INTEGRATION PROCESSES 1[13.02.2020]
• CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURES AND IDEOLOGY[25.01.2018]
• SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE OF THE MULTIPOLAR WORLD[23.01.2018]
• “COLOR REVOLUTIONS”[16.01.2017]
• INFORMATION WARFARE OF THE NEW FORMATION[26.12.2016]
• THE GROWTH OF EXTREMISM AND THE FACTOR OF “INTELLECTUAL PARITY”[22.09.2015]
• THE GROWTH OF EXTREMISM AND THE FACTOR OF “INTELLECTUAL PARITY”[31.08.2015]
• ARMENIAN STUDIES IN THE SYSTEM OF NATIONAL SECURITY[07.05.2015]
• EEU AND ARMENIA[15.12.2014]
• HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN AZERBAIJAN TOO BLATANT TO COVER UP[06.10.2014]